Archive for the 'Libya' Tag Under 'Orange Punch' Category

Caroline B. Glick of the Jerusalem Post outlined frustrations with what she called "Obama's altruistic foreign policy" in one of Israel's most read newspapers. From this vantage point, Obama's foreign policy has been incoherent at best and one of his biggest shortcomings as President.

Here is how Glick describes it:

If only in the interest of intellectual hygiene, it would be refreshing if the Obama administration would stop ascribing moral impetuses to its foreign policy.

Today, US forces are engaged in a slowly escalating war on behalf of al-Qaida penetrated antiregime forces in Libya. It is difficult to know the significance of al-Qaida's role in the opposition forces because to date, the self-proclaimed rebel government has only disclosed 10 of its 31 members.

Indeed, according to The New York Times, the NATO-backed opposition to dictator Muammar Gaddafi is so disorganized that it cannot even agree about who the commander of its forces is.

We raised the question some time ago about the president's motives in attacking Libya, a country that hadn't attacked us. He said at one point our intervention was to save the lives of Libyans rebelling against their ruler, Moammar Gadhafi.

We asked a reasonable question: What do we do if the rebels get the upper hand and threaten massacre of Gadhafi loyalists? Do we intervene then on the other side? Or is one man's massacre another's worthy exercise?

"The U.S. is monitoring the possibility of terrorist attacks originating in Libya, either from the forces of Muammar Qaddafi or rebels who may have associated with terror groups in the past, FBI Director Robert Mueller said."

Catch that? "...or rebels who may have associated with terror groups in the past..."

Doesn't it seem that President Barack Obama has gotten the cart before the horse - again? Wouldn't it have been a good idea to know who the United States was supporting in Libya before committing troops and military might to their cause?

"The Obama administration has sent teams of CIA operatives into Libya in a rush to gather intelligence on the identities and capabilities of rebel forces opposed to Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi, according to U.S. officials," says a report in today's Washington Post.

So now the president wants to know who those guys are and what they are capable of doing.

Now?

But so much of what the Obama administration has done - or tried to do - seems divorced from the real world's realities. How did that ethanol thing work out? How about denying all those drilling permits? And that stimulus stuff, wasn't that a pip? Need we even mention Obamacare?

Barack Obama is putting his stamp on his presidency. It won't be mistaken for any other. Remember Obamacare and how despite overwhelming public opposition he plunged ahead anyway, getting a bill shoved through Congress not even its supporters had read? Well, his approach is similar when it comes to war, or should we make that "kinetic military action."

"When Ronald Reagan, the last American president to bomb Libya, launched military operations over the skies of Tripoli, he addressed the nation from the Oval Office. When George H.W. Bush launched military operations in Panama, the Persian Gulf and Somalia, he addressed the nation. So did Bill Clinton when he launched military strikes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan and Yugoslavia. So did George W. Bush when he launched military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq."

How's Obama compare? Well, nine days after launching war, er, kinetic military action, he addressed the American people.

Well, after all, Obama wants to get the world on our side before he acts - and apparently before he gets us on our side.

The president's speech last night was lofty and inspiring - if you already agreed with what he decided to do, which was send Americans to risk their lives and kill foreigners. The fact is, Barack Obama has averted his eyes from countless other "humanitarian" catastrophes around the globe, which he said he couldn't do in the case of Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, who threatened to kill his own people. Tyrants have been killing their own people a long time. Obama's outrage is selective, at best.

After the major problem that this president decided to wage war (and call it something else) without a declaration from Congress against a sovereign nation (despicable as it may be) that had not first attacked us and thought it was OK because another bunch of foreigners (the U.N.) said it was OK, there remains yet another major and serious problem with what he's done.

What will Obama do next if Gadhafi is overthrown by a gang of thugs who are much like himself but who decide Jeffersonian democracy isn't their ideal?

What will he do if these replacement thugs start massacring Gadhafi supporters the way Gadhafi merely threatened to massacre his opponents?

In the Alice-in-Wonderland logic of the left, there is an assumption that America should risk American blood to wage war when - drum roll here - America has nothing at stake.

Bosnia comes to mind. And of course now Libya. Erick Erickson over at HumanEvents.com puts it succinctly:

"If it really was for a humanitarian crisis, why then have we not gone into Darfur or North Korea or China," Erickson asks. "The answer cannot be because they'll fight back. That may be true for the Chicons and NORKs, but Darfur?"

In fact, Erickson notes, Obama ordered Americans to risk their lives and kill others "all because Hillary, Susan and Samantha wanted to show the world that America is, in fact, willing to engage in a military action when our national security is not at risk."

This convoluted thinking somehow finds virtue in the fact that we are willing to throw our weight around when it's not called for, when it's not necessary to protect or even advance us. Indeed, we are especially willing to throw our weight around when we have nothing to gain.

The War Powers Act circumvented the Constitution's clear language and since its adoption, presidents have been emboldened to go to war without getting a specific declaration from Congress. Now Barack Obama has taken this trend to the next logical step: he didn't even bother to consult Congress, apparently believing that when a bunch of foreign dignitaries say it's OK, he can send Americans off to die and kill.

Maybe this is the reason he didn't ask: Gallup pollsters say that only 47 percent of American adults approve of "the current U.S. military actions against Libya."

That's the lowest support of any military action over three decades. Even Kosovo in 1999, had majority support, 51 percent.

Well, at least we know that this war won't go on forever because it's clear that as soon as civilians are protected on the ground our job is done. Or, wait a minute, as soon as Gadhafi is dead our job is done. Or, wait, as soon as the Europeans take over all the shooting our job is done. Or, hold on, as soon as Gadhafi kills all the rebels our job is done.

It's debatable whether President Obama had the constitutional authority to launch a war against a foreign power without Congressional approval. The Constitution says no and even the fine points of the War Powers Act don't seem to justify his brash hawkishness. So, it's probably not too surprising that now we're in it up to our hips, all our "allies" are beginning to wonder how to end it and who will take the reigns.

This would be funny, if it weren't such a constitutional travesty and human lives were on the line. Call it "the allied nations who couldn't shoot straight." Or at least see beyond their collective noses.

Far more difficult are the questions of who should now lead the mission and what the operation's ultimate objectives should be.

The US government, wary of getting stuck in another war in a Muslim country, would like to hand control of the mission over to NATO, but the alliance is divided. At a meeting on Monday, NATO ambassadors failed to agree on whether the alliance should take control of the mission. NATO involvement would require approval by all 28 members.

For those weak in the stomach, I do not recommend watching the video below. It is a graphic video of citizens taking pictures from their cell phones just before a bomb attacks. It is thought to be video of Libyan forces bombing civilians but that has not been independently verified as of yet.